So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...

Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.

I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another. I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?

and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?

I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.

If you did this, you were infringing copyright. Perhaps this is a fair use exception, that's a potential defence, and until it's established in court as an exception, there's adequate evidence for a trial. Who knows; perhaps this case will form an important legal precedent.

If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.

Isn't the slight difference that murder is a crime in both countries, whereas copyright infringement isn't?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being extradited for a civil matter before, although no doubt someone can prove me wrong.

I have zero personal sympathy for this guy. I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke..

However, he certainly shouldn't be extradited for this. If this had been the other way round, there is no way he would have been extradited from the US to the UK even if he had committed a real, serious crime.

"I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke.. "

Interestingly, there have been test cases to this effect in Commonwealth countries. There was a famous test case to this effect in Australia [austlii.edu.au], where someone fired a gun on one side of a state border (much of the decision was to decide precisely where the border was) and killed a person who was on the other side.

The murder, it was ruled, happened in the state where the victim was shot.

Errr, you do realise that Scotland and England are the same country??? There is no reason to extradite as the Scottish policeman can just arrest you as you are still in the UK... Other than that and you are talking about a crime rather than a civil offence etc., good point.

They have different legal systems though. And you would be tried under Scottish law.

But this isn't murder. It's copyright infringement. The physical location of the servers hosting the data, or of the client, or of the website, or of the defendant could all be relevant, but where he happened to register the domain seems to have as much relevance as where he bought his PC.

Scotland and England are the same country in the same way that Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the same country, in that they're not. Separate parliament, police force, legal system... The UK is a sovereign state, not a country.

That is a particularly bad example due to the conflict over that territory and the fact that, due to that conflict, there is nothing politically linking them apart from them both joining the E.U. in the last few decades. There has been no similar civil conflict over the union of Scotland and England in recent times. How about a different example: Hawaii and Texas? Two somewhat different societies, with different political systems, different legal systems, but also represented by a unified parliament? Would

1) O'Dwyer never went to the US whilst running the site. He visited as a small child, but I don't think he has a stronger connection to the US than this.

2) The servers on which his service were being run were not in the US.

Most sensible people would therefore argue that he hasn't comitted a crime on US soil.

But it gets worse. The existing case law in the UK suggests very strongly that the UK does not consider what O'Dwyer did to be a crime. A similar site (TV links) was accused in similar circumstances and let off the hook, because it was deemed to be a 'mere conduit' (Like a safe harbour defense, rather than that deciding that *linking to things is not a crime*, for example).

Now a UK judge has said that O'Dwyer probably was criminal in this case, because he exerted considerable control over the site, and therefore cannot use the same defense.

But that's smoke and mirrors, frankly. The way we figure out if that is a crime or not is to try him in court, not to push him off to some corrupt nation where it definitely is a crime.

So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...

Nope. In this case we are extraditing him because the crime he is accused of is also a crime here as well just with such a low sentence (maximum 6 months instead of 5 years) their is no public interest in prosecuting him. If what he did was not a crime here though he would not have a problem.

And, by my understanding, that question is actually still to be resolved, and will be resolved by the appeals court.

If it is held not to be illegal, you can be damn sure the tories will rush through a law that makes it illegal again pretty quick.

The fact is that this guy encouraged others (the conspiracy part) to submit him links where you could download or watch stuff that you were not paying the copyright holder for. He then ran a web site that amalgamated the links into a nice easily searchable system and took money from advertisers based on the number of page hits he was getting. By the sounds of it he made around

Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers. For a moment I was a bit unsure, thinking that in extradition requests the seriousness of the crime and potential differences of maximum penalties in both countries ought to be considered, but your post has made it quite clear to me that having a site with links to potentially copyright infringing content should be treated directly on a par with terrorism and murder.

But think of all those accountants that get to handle the millions of alleged dollars the MPAA/RIAA would make in a world without piracy! And since they don't have jobs well they're gonna go commit suicide.

Sounds like murder to me.

(Not even kidding, this is the same reasoning used by the propaganda video played on tvshack.net.)

GP cogently used an example where there is no doubt that a crime has been committed to refute the GGP argument that committing a crime in one country from another is a grey area.O'Dwyer is being treated a s criminal because the crimes O'Dwyer is accused of are criminal in the US & the extradition treaty between the two counties does not make exceptions that apply here.

Except that as a number of people have pointed out above you, its a considerable question as to whether or not what he is accused of doing was in fact a crime in the UK.It doesn't matter though, the Media Moguls and their henchmen have enough power to shape the US legal code, and in effect decree foreign policy on issues like this. Legality doesn't apply when the US Empire flexes its might.Apparently if you do anything, anywhere, that the US Government doesn't like, you *will* be extradited to the US. This is just another example.

Linking is *not* a crime in UK, no matter what some district judge might personally think. There is no legislation saying it is a crime (or even civil misdemeanour), just an opinion by someone who has nothing to do with any part of an extradition process and forgot that he is supposed to interpret law, not make it up. What he said was "probably illegal" and has no place whatsoever in any legal proceedings.

Posting a letter bomb is most definitely a crime in UK, even if it doesn't kill / maim / hurt anyone be

By that idea, each time some mountain dew swilling military drone 'pilot' bombs some family in Afghanistan, they should be sent over there to be punished for the crime.

The truth is that there are no rules about crimes in the world, just local conventions. The British people should rightly be up in arms about this particular case, as it means their government is selling them out to a foreign power.

Ah, one more small battle in the War on Youth. Let's see: cameras in the streets, ASBOs, patents that kill new competition, laws against drugs, laws against sharing, laws against resisting arrest, student loans, sugar-laden foods, credit card debt, loss of permanent jobs, the list goes on. The UK and USA lead the world in the War on Youth, which pits the old against the young. Extraditing a couple of "pirates" is just consistent with this theme.

Strange thing, but there's truth in this. In an other discussion I was wondering that the current trend in demographics in relation to electorate politics creates a political system that is by nature becomes the enemy of the younger generations, and that is easy to show all over Western Europe. Most of the politicians and the people who vote for them were educated on the expense of the budget, that is, "for free". This generation benefited of the welfare state in every way, health case, job protection, rent control, council housing, cheap mortgage and property prices, so they could cut these services with the line "there ain't such thing as free lunch".

Ageing population is a real political concern for the under-thirties generation.

Funny how so many social benefits lead to this sort of generational warfare. Education clearly helps the young more while medical care and pensions (especially of the sort that can't be sustained with changing demographics). This is one of the reasons I advocate getting government (well, my government, yours can keeping doing whatever it's doing) out of the entitlement racket.

Among other things, it stirs rivalry between different segments of the population, young versus old, poor versus wealthy, politically marginalized versus the politically connected, uncredentialed versus the credentialed, etc. How are you going to get society-wide cooperation when so many groups are fighting for their piece of government squeeze?

Theresa May is from the Conservative Party [wikipedia.org], the UK's right wing major political party (I think this means something like Democrat in the USA?). Her party is very pro-USA in terms of where they take their political lead from and want to orient their geo-politics - as opposed to, say, a more pro-centrist/socialist European line. So I don't think it's too surprising that she'll be happy to do the US government a small favour on this one.

Some might say it's going too far to extradite UK citizens who are alleged to have broken a US law while in the UK, others might say it's pragmatic to work for closer ties with the world's largest super power when they come asking a favour (which is within English law: the Extradition Act of 2003).

The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.

That's because the US was formed by the "radicals" of the 1700's-1800's. The Founders were the OWS of their time. They deliberately chose to avoid the type of central-authority-heavy types of government they were familiar with in Europe that severely restricted individual freedom and kept people mostly restricted to their own socio-economic class, and came at the idea of a central government as simply a necessary evil that should be given only those powers and control over only enough wealth to carry out the bare functions of a national government, and leaving most all other governing to the States and local authorities in order to promote a diverse system where one can find a place that generally governs in a way to suit a particular individual or group.

This totally different outlook caused America to be the place and the culture that so many people around the world wanted to be like and/or immigrate to and become part of for so many decades.

So, of course, Europeans would see the US political landscape as extremist. It is. Or, at least, it was.

While the modern conservatives believe that a central government should be given enough power to carry out only the bare functions of a national government... except for where drugs are concerned. And banning gay marriage. And regulation of pornography. And broadcast indecency. And funding of abstinance-only programs. And endorsing Christian religion through large taxpayer-funded displays and monuments. And restricting abortion. And about a thousand other things. The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago.

I agree with most of your argument, but OWS? Seriously? I am very interested where you got the impression that OWS was dedicated to individual freedom. OWS primary message is focused on class warfare, in direct contradiction to individual freedom.

Yeah, well, you've got a point.

I guess I was trying to point out something contemporary young people today are familiar with protest-wise, and make a case that the founders were the "radicals" of their day.

These days you're called radical if you simply advocate for the government to stick to the deal that's in writing (the US Constitution) and for more individual freedom, instead of some type of collectivist view that has government making choices for you.

So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?

No, because (1) driving a car is not illegal according to UK law, so you wouldn't be extradited even if it was proven that she drove in Saudi Arabia. (2) because driving a car in the UK happens in the UK and has no effect outside, so she can't be extradited, just as even murdering a Saudi Arabian citizen in the UK would't get her extradited. (3) possibly not because it would be checked what is the punishment in Saudi Arabia vs. the punishment say for driving without a license in the UK, and if the punishmen

Tony Blair is not the Labour Party, thank God. He is not left wing, never mind socialist. Most left wingers in Britain are opposed to US foreign policy, and would happily see him indicted for war crimes following his decision to support Bush in Iraq.

But create a website the Americans don't like? That's it, off to the US with you!

Apparently a controversal programme is enough human rights grounds to prevent extradition of a paedophile, but the high potential for suicide (McKinnon) or the fact a guy will have his life ruined, and run a high risk of ra

If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?

Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?

Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?

It might only be civil in the UK, I don't really know. But the actual charges in the US are criminal, not civil. The MAFIAA have been steadily increasing the footprint of the criminal statutes regarding copyright infringement for decades now.

UK has a similar criminal copyright infringement law to the US; in this case the charge would be "infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner)"

Wait, that brings up a thought - why can't Greece extradite Jamie Dimon & Lloyd Blankfein to Greece for their "crimes" at defrauding the country into massive debt? After all, if the US can extradite someone for something as "horrible" as posting *links* to *other sites* that contain copyrighted material, *surely* outright financial fraud ought to be extraditable.:-)

If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?

Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if yo

Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.

To clarify: You can and will be extradited within the EU for something that is a crime in one country but not another. So if you ship from UK to Germany, you can and will be extradited. If you ship from the USA to Germany, Germany will ask for extradition which will be denied; if you are then stupid enough to travel to the UK, you will be extradited.

Going by the information in that article, I have to say I agree with the justices. That's a fucked up system you guys have got:

The justices in London outlined a litany of concerns in their June 20 decision, noting offenders don't have to be mentally ill to be committed; their offenses don't have to be recent; and in some cases, they don't even have to have been convicted of a crime.

As of April 1, 641 people were in Minnesota's program...some who say it holds people indefinitely after their prison sentences

As has the UK, and much more egregiously. Your point? And are you so seriously into conspiracy theories that you think that they're going to "secretly" do anything in blatant violation of international treaties, with someone who's probably the highest profile wanted person on the planet right now? Especially after the Swedish prime minister himself has pointed out that Sweden would need UK permission?

To put it another way [europa.eu]: "4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law."

Aka, it still comes down to whether a British court would approve an extradition request from the US according to British law. So either way it's up to British courts to decide on an extradition request for Assange unless Sweden wants to be blatantly and explicitly in violation of its treaty obligations on one of the highest profile cases out there. The Swedish prime minister has already publicly pointed out that it couldn't extradite Assange to the US if it wanted to without British courts handling the US request according to their own law.

The only difference between Assange being in the UK and Assange being in Sweden is that he doesn't have to stand trial for rape in the UK. Despite all of the bluster to the contrary.

It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition. I understand there are fundamental differences to each case, but since when did the government allow facts or common sense guide their decision and policy making?

It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition.

"While not on US soil" doesn't matter, and has never mattered. In the legal sense, a crime isn't committed at the place where you are, but at the place where it has an effect. Now in the past these two places were most likely the same, but not always. Shooting a person on the other side of a border (which has actually happened), sending mail bombs, all meant that you could commit a crime in a country without stepping on its soil. And nerds may look at the location of servers in this case, which also doesn't

As an American, I do think this is absolute crap. However, I've seen a willingness of both American political parties to cross lines that nobody ever dared to cross before so I can't say I'm truly surprised that the US government would push for his extradition while on the other hand not being very fond of the idea of having foreign laws apply to US companies in a restrictive sense. The real reason I think that the US government wants him is that I suspect he was making a lot more money on advertising tha

...To the Right Hon. Theresa May, MP from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Religious Justice.

You have been flagrantly displaying bare shoulders, forearms and legs in public in the UK and are in breach of our decency laws. We hereby apply to have you extradited to Saudi Arabia so that you can receive a summary trial with the sentence of being publicly whipped.

Theresa May has not said "NO" and indeed has not responded at all. The report quotes a press release that was issued before my petition was even launched. There has been no response to me at all so far.

It was the last lot that signed the extradition agreement in the first place.
Why we are extraditing someone for "copyright" offences, which should really be a civil matter, is beyond me. I would have thought that the correct course of action would be for the copyright holders to bring a case for damages in the UK courts and take their chances.
This lot, the last lot? They're all cunts by definition. An honest politician is all too rare a commodity these days - the web of intertwined lobbying interests seems to strangle truth at birth.

It was the last lot that signed the extradition agreement in the first place. Why we are extraditing someone for "copyright" offences, which should really be a civil matter, is beyond me

Simple really, it is not a civil matter as far as UK law is concerned. You are right in that he shouldn't be getting extradited but that is because he committed all his crimes in the UK, he should be prosecuted in the UK really. The thing is though, what he is accused of is still a crime over here (not a civil wrong or tort), otherwise we would not be allowed to extradite him.

A better idea might be that we tried to get the law changed so this was not a crime over here. I am not 100% sure if the UK public would actually be in favour of us relaxing copyright law though and unfortunately some serious public support would be needed for this sort of change.

That's not really true. Cameron has done a lot of good things. Junked the DNA database, repealed some of the drastic anti-terror laws, killed the ID card scheme, and stopped the unifying of all the government databases. They are making good headway to repairing the wanton destruction of civil liberties by Brown and Blair.

Currently it's the justice system, independent of the government, that is showing itself to be either broken or corrupt. A government crying shy of meddling with an independent justice syst